Zim-US relations: mutual respect important

The US should not try to champion values of human rights and rule of law on which scores it fares quite badly individually and by proxy, to coerce Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe does not need to be made out of the image of the imperfect US.

By Tichaona Zindoga
Last week, United States Ambassador to Zimbabwe Charles Ray met Zanu-PF national chairman, Ambassador Simon Khaya Moyo at the Zanu-PF headquarters in Harare. The development was described as a step towards rebuilding relations between the US and the revolutionary party which the US so loves to hate.
Of course, the American diplomat repeated the deceptively blithe statement which he has been to town with that the US does not favour, or for that matter hate, any one party in the country.
It will not do anybody any good to waste time pointing out just how dishonest Ambassador Ray is on this score, with all due respect to the diplomat.
The record speaks for itself especially through Zidera with which the US seeks to undermine the President Mugabe-led Zanu-PF party by putting its members on sanctions and by crippling the Government which Zanu-PF at one time exclusively led.
The reverse side of this policy has been the support to the "pro-democracy" MDC parties, the civil society and the "independent" media.
It will be a surprisingly happy day indeed when the US will make good of its claim that it does not support any one party over another in Zimbabwe.
In particular, it will be interesting to see the US reconciling itself with Zanu-PF considering the ideological chasm that exists between the two.
Need it be pointed out that it does not matter whether America is led by George W Bush, Barack Obama or someone that falls from Mars straight into White House?
Yet the meeting between Ambassadors Khaya Moyo and Ray points to the necessity and even desirability of normalising relations between the US and the party that best represents the nationalist goals of Zimbabwe.
Outside of the ephemeral developments like the so-called movement for democratic change embodied in the political parties of a similar name, Zimbabwe has certain constants.
This includes jealously guarding the great natural and human resources of the country.
This is a continuum that stretches from at least the 1890s' resistance to settler rule right to this date when the country is set to consolidate self-determination through the ownership of resources and economic empowerment of the majority.
Zanu-PF, which by the way has more than a fair share of legitimacy to claim ownership of the gamut of patriotic history of Zimbabwe - along with the heroes that made it - leads Zimbabwe's continuum of self-determination.
This is one aspect that the US has not been comfortable with and has frantically tried to undo, to the point of regretting that the current crop of its favoured MDC formations has not been able to achieve American ends the same way US pawns elsewhere have done under similar circumstances.
Former American ambassador here Christopher Dell made this lamentation.
Despite the MDC parties, in particular the larger faction led by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, saying they are for the future, there is precious little on the ground to suggest that they can outlive their inherent fleetingness.
For instance, it is conceivable that the US could well shunt MDC-T aside one bad day (for PM Tsvangirai and company) when it is sufficiently fed up with these cards that they have been dealt, as Dell would put it.
Does it come as a surprise then that even PM Tsvangirai has admitted that "(President) Mugabe is part of the solution", much to the mortification of those used to the "Mugabe must go" mantra?
There has been talk of the US through, and with the MDCs engaging "moderates" in Zanu-PF.
In all these scenarios the fundamental aspect is that Zanu-PF is an important component of Zimbabwe's politics and society at large.
As well, it is evident that the US needs Zimbabwe and Zanu-PF with the reverse being true, which is all the more critical in this globalised world.
The contentious area, though, is the engagement.
The current stand-off that was especially born out of America's buying into Zimbabwe's bilateral land issue with Britain - which it typically does where the latter is in trouble - is unsustainable.
This is not only because it is hard to imagine America continuing hypocritically and arrogantly to hold aloof even when it is being exposed for double standards on Zimbabwe and Zanu-PF which have maintained that they do not have a basis for a beef with America.
In fact, it is the US that has found beef with Zimbabwe over some alleged human rights abuses even when it is as clear as day that the US is itself about the worst violator of human rights as Guantanamo, and US' neo-imperial wars today testify.
The stand-off between Zimbabwe and the US has cost both sides dearly - perhaps more than any side is ready to admit.
But the basis of mending relations between the US and Zanu-PF should be mutual respect.
Zanu-PF doesn't need to like US foreign policy nor does the US have to like Zanu-PF as a party with its hardliners and all.
The Zimbabwe that Zanu-PF leads is as sovereign a country as the US is.
The US has really no business dictating to Zimbabwe what it should do with its land and diamonds, among other resources, or to use its comparative political, military and economic strength to coerce Zimbabwe to behave in a particular manner.
It would not be quite as pleasant were roles to be changed!
Similarly, the US should not try to champion values of human rights and rule of law on which scores it fares quite badly individually and by proxy, to coerce Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe does not need to be made out of the image of the imperfect US.
Here is also to remind the likes of Ambassador Ray to stop pretending to be as ordinary folk like any other when he is the face of US imperialism just as the civilian-faced USAID, represents the same.
Ambassador Ray has lately been playing ordinary folk.
He was quoted as saying, for example that "...if you read some of the things some of the media have accused me of doing, you wonder if I'm not some re-incarnation of Machiavelli instead of a simple country boy who happens to be the American ambassador here."
Further, he revealed that with his wife, they had "raised four children and I'm the oldest child in a family with three younger brothers and sisters. I am accustomed to temper tantrums and the way I deal with that is ignore it until they run out of steam."
Ambassador Ray can't be as ordinary, and the US indeed is about the incarnation of Machiavelli.
It won't help matters when there is pretence to the contrary.
Yet in the world where convergence is far better than divergence there is more reason, on Zimbabwe's part for example, to embrace both Ambassador Ray and the US while the reverse is also true.
But it is all serious business which won't be helped by a diplomat that goes onto the streets and gives money to newspaper vendors and says he is re-engaging Zimbabwe.
Similarly, granting Ambassador Ray is the ordinary man he chooses to parade himself as, it does not make him as ordinary as the man on the street who suffers sanctions that Ambassador Ray's US has imposed to make Zimbabwe's economy scream.
Zanu-PF's major undoing and crime will be its insistence on Zimbabwe's sovereignty but it has shown that it can be accommodating even to its sworn enemies.
There has to be a beginning and difficult concessions will have to be made on both sides.

Noam Chomsky discredits, exposes self on Zimbabawe

DR NOAM CHOMSKY, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is often hailed, by many, as the moral conscience of America on many global issues such as Palestine/Israel, inexplicably lost his moral compass when asked to comment on Zimbabwe during a recent interview with globalbreakingnews.com.

Dr Chomsky, the author of countless scholarly and political books and articles, spanning decades, refused to condemn the US economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe since 2001 that was responsible, according to a United Nations' official, for the spread of cholera in the country in 2008.


"Mugabe is a monster who has caused irreparable harm," Chomsky ranted, referring to Zimbabwe's President.


And, without offering any evidence, Chomsky charged that President Mugabe has committed major crimes against Africans.

Chomsky takes his cue from so-called non-government organisations such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI) and TransAfrica.

These organisations dismiss the historical right of black people in Zimbabwe, in particular, and Africa in general, to reclaim the land that was stolen from their ancestors by white settlers. The IRI is an affiliated organisation of the NED, which has an annual budget of over US$30 million that is financed by the US Congress.

The board of directors of both the IRI and the NED comprises a virtual who's who of the American national security establishment, including Lawrence Eagleburger, former secretary of state in the George H.W. Bush administration, Brent Scrowcroft, retired US Air Force lieutenant-general, former Democratic congressman Richard Gephardt, and Republican senator Norm Coleman.

The NED boasts that it is the darling of America's mainstream conservative activists and thinkers.

According to its website, "endorsements of the NED have been offered by the leadership of such stalwart conservative organisations as the Heritage Foundation and Empower America, and favourable editorials have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times and National Review."
Although the NED pretends to be independent of the US government, it frequently consults with relevant policy makers about its work, "going well beyond the level of contact required by its authorising legislation", according to its website.

Carl Gershman, president of the NED, advised the US Senate to deploy assets to bribe and coerce officials of Zimbabwe's "electoral systems, national legislatures, judiciary, local governments, civil society and the Press", to destabilise, and ultimately overthrow, the government of Zimbabwe.

On Zimbabwe, Dr Chomsky and the so-called progressives in Europe and America are the leftwing of the rightwing shills of white settler interests.
What was disturbing about our exchange with Dr Chomsky was that he refused to acknowledge that the imposition of US sanctions in 2001 coincided with the Zimbabwean government's acceleration of its policy of "one man, one farm," which deprived white settlers of their huge land holdings.


What is also disturbing is that no "progressive" publication in America or Europe champions the rights of indigenous Zimbabweans to control the levers of economic power in their country. Matthew


 Rothschild, editor of The Progressive magazine, refuses to publish any article, which asserts the right of black people in Zimbabwe to control their economic space.


It is a default position of so-called progressives - support the right to vote for black people but not the right for black people to own and control their economic resources.

When asked to comment on matters of African economic control, Dr Chomsky resorted to the same prevarications as Zimbabwe's rightwing detractors:

"Do you believe that the seizure of white settler land is a just policy to reverse over 100 years of economic terrorism against Africans?", Chomsky was asked. No response.

"Are you familiar with the workings of Zimbabwe's democratic institutions?", Chomsky was asked. No response.

"Do you agree that the sanctions against Zimbabwe should be rescinded immediately?," Chomsky was asked. His response: "Sanctions are wrong".


"Will you be as vocal in your opposition to those sanctions which are killing Zimbabwean children as you are of Israel's killing of Palestinian children?," Chomsky was asked. His response: "No, because the US role is much less significant and the situation is much more ambiguous."

Correction dear Professor! There is no ambiguity. The US' role is front and centre of the suffering of Zimbabwe's people. The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, enacted by the US Congress in 2001, prevents the Zimbabwean government from accessing the loans and lines of credit it needs to purchase medical equipment and supplies for its hospitals, so that its citizens can receive effective treatment for cholera and other diseases.

The Act empowers the United States' secretary of the treasury to "instruct the US executive director to each international financial institution to oppose and vote against any extension, by the respective institution, of any loan, credit or guarantee to the government of Zimbabwe."

And, one of the most odious conditions of the Act is the demand that the rule of law be restored in Zimbabwe "including respect for ownership and title to property," before the sanctions are lifted.

The only people who are complaining in Zimbabwe today about the lack of "respect for ownership and title to property" are the white settlers whose land, which was stolen from indigenous

Zimbabweans has been returned to their rightful owners.
In other words, what the US government is really saying is: "Until the white settlers are given back their land, Zimbabwe's economy will continue to be attacked by the American government."

When questioned about those issues, Dr Chomsky resorted to intellectual puerility: "I am sorry that you don't understand that I have not been appointed your slave, and therefore choose my own priorities", was his childish retort.

For someone who is often called upon by the media to mediate between that huge body of knowledge lying out there, about various matters, and consumers of news, Chomsky's lack of integrity on the Zimbabwe land and sanctions issue is disappointing.

As a mediator between the news and those who consume it, Chomsky ought to know that he has a responsibility to be a purveyor of truth.

Instead, he has assumed the role of an imperial knave regurgitating innuendo, half-truths and outright lies.

You need to hit the books, Professor!

• I. K. Cush is the editor-in-chief of globalbreakingnews.com and the New York correspondent of the London-based New African magazine.

President Mugabe defines the national Question

By Tichaona Zindoga

Lately, academic and commentator Dr Tafataona Mahoso has been decrying the fact that Africans in general and Zimbabweans in particular were increasingly and tragically relying on benchmarks set in America and Europe in the fields of judiciary, politics, media, economy, among others.

The sad thing about borrowing these robes, he argued, was that they were unsustainable and had failed in their home countries with tragic consequences such as the recent global financial crisis or tsunami, which proclaimed to be the worst in around a century.

He cites the phone hacking scandal involving media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World publication as the latest crisis born of the unsustainable Western standards and benchmarks.

Even sadder, he noted, was that Western countries were trying to foist these same failed policies in developing countries like Zimbabwe through the media and the western sponsored NGOs.

However, save for proffering the concept of ubuntu as the basis and linchpin of home-made benchmarks, the academic is yet to pronounce the benchmarks that Zimbabwe and Africa have to adopt and what ideals should constitute the same.

Yet something happened during the just-ended Heroes holiday that no doubt tallies with what Dr Mahoso probably had in mind.

Before President Mugabe made his keynote address to mark this year’s Heroes Day at the National Heroes Acre monument, a minister of religion, Roman Catholic priest Fidelis Mukonori read a passage from the Bible in which Moses was being promised plenitude for him and future generations.

But there was one condition: that Moses stuck with the Law and Truth.

Presumably, many people were left groping for the significance of this passage, which the priest read at length and could only cap with the Lord’s Prayer.

But President Mugabe, alluding to the reading, gave a meaning to this passage and defined Zimbabwe’s own Ideal and Truth, which explains why he has been and is the revolutionary that he is and one that the West hates with a passion.

He said Zimbabwe would have the plenitude that Moses was promised by God if there was the recognition of “our principles and forthright ideals that the country ours”.

He said: “You heard from the Bible that Moses was promised by God that if you are upright and in Truth even the enemy will be defeated because you will be in Truth.

“As for you,” he told the thousands gathered, “even there is suffering and death, the enemy (meaning the West) will not take the country back. But you should stand by the Truth and not be misled by the enemy, his words or money.

“Remain by the Truth; and the Truth. The Truth is what we fought in this country. The Truth of this country is that the country is ours. The Truth is that the fruits of this country are ours. The truth that the soil that gives the fruits is ours; the soil that gives us wealth is ours.

“This is the Truth that we fight for: the Reality, the Truth of the issue.

“That is the National Question that we fought for and it is that what is continuously being fought for with you as one and united. There should be no disunity and if you break away you go away you would have deserted the Truth and go to the Lie. Remain on the Truth that the country is yours...”

It is no doubt that by explicitly pointing out the National Question, President Mugabe put into proper context the history, the present and the future of Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe is defined by its people and God-given resources and the people as relating, indeed owning, the God-given resources.

The liberation war, dating back to the 1893 Umvukela, was over land and Zimbabwean people’s sovereignty as exercised over that land.

It is the Truth and the benchmark that the people of Zimbabwe have set for themselves.

Suffice to say, since at least 1890, the West has been at war with the people of Zimbabwe, as with the rest of the Afrian continent, over because the British wanted to negate the Truth of the people’s ownership of their God-given resources.

This war with Zimbabwe subsists to this day.

Need it be pointed out that it has been established that the reason for the current standoff between Zimbabwe and Britain, along with its allies and kith and kin in the West has been over the issue of land?

And has the world not seen Britain employing all kind of tactics to defeat Zimbabwe and steal her land?

This is where the issue of benchmarks comes into play.

Against a background of the well grounded Truth that Zimbabweans should be in control of their destiny by owning their resources, the West has employed various players and instituted to have the world and Zimbabwe believe that the fundamental question in Zimbabwe is about democracy.

Ironically, the same forces that preach democracy today are the ones that fought against democracy yesterday with the colonial master Britain fighting tooth and nail to deny Zimbabweans majority rule, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, universal suffrage, among other benchmarks.

The West is sponsoring all manner of activities and personalities to undo the gains of the liberation struggle, chiefly the land.

This is done in the name of demoracy promotion with the aptly-named Movement for Democratic Change parties being the chief agency for the envisaged new benchmarks.

In contempt of the values ande benchmarks wrought in the continuum of fighting against an interfering West, some of the “democracy fighters” have deserated national institutions and personalities like the National Heroes Acre and heros.

The so-called security sector reform, for example, which dovetails into the broader institutional reform that the West envisages in Zimbabwe, seeks to purge the country’s eurity setor of “hardliners” who have stood steadfast against the machinations of the West.

Some have gone public with their pro-Zimbabwe stance against hostile interference from the West saying they won’t salute anybody who does not have liberation was credentials.

The meaning of this is that the liberation war is a benchmark of national interest.

Anyone who did not fight the war, just 31 years on, where it was possible to, could well serve to defeat the national interest.

As indeed does MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai through his embracing, and benefit from, Western agenda to undo the gains of the liberation struggle.

The “independent” media in Zimbabwe is all but undoing the gains of the liberation struggle by seeking to defeat not only the revolutionary Zanu-PF and President Mugabe but also such programmes as the land reform and the current indigenisation and economic empowerment drive.

And by the standards that the West sets by founding these media and or oiling them with what Professor Jonathan Moyo calls dirty brown envelopes they should.

The same for the judiciary: a judiciary that seeks to consolidate the gains of the liberation struggle is considered bad by the West while that which seeks to defeat the same, like the ill-fated Sadc Tribunal, is hailed.

Unfortunately, the West seeks to disenfranchise and disempower the majority as only a few individuals and companies they own benefit and this usually backfires spectacularly like the global financial tsunami that was triggered by few individuals fiddling with markets in America.

This calls for the upholding of Zimbabwe’s own benchmarks that benefit the majority of the people of this country.

This is the fundamental Truth and the National Question that President Mugabe defined.